In the spirit of the highly popular UV filter poll, I realized we need another poll for hoods.
The UV filter thread concluded that some image quality is indeed sacrificed in some situations by UV filter usage, but that the front element is safe from harm, as UV filters apperently have magical characteristics that will absorb heavy impacts.
Opposite to UV filters, I almost always use hoods on my lenses. The only time I don't is for flash photography. Unlike UV filters, I feel hoods actually increases the image quality, reduces flare and increases contrast. I don't know if hoods have the same magical powers of shock absorbation as UV filters, as I usually don't drop any of my gear, but I'm sure you have stories to tell.
There are very few lenses that don't benefit from having a hood (with regard to flare control), but almost every lens benefits from a hood with regard to protecting it a little more. I always have my hoods on.
I uses hoods when I have one avialable. And for the lenses I love to use, I try to get one, probably optimize hoods to get it in tulip shape.
But for many of my lenses I have no hood, and donīt start to search for one. Special bajonett hoods are sometimes expensive for older lenses.
Can't answer since I only use hoods for the lenses that comes with a hood. But when they do, I always have the hood on except for when using polarizers.
Depends on the hood. If you're talking about a good deep hood like the ones usually found on long lenses then yes, they do the things you talk about (protect lens, help with flare). But the skinny little "butterfly" type hoods you typically see on short zooms are next to useless for anything, including protecting the lens.
I put hoods on most of the time on the theory that they can't hurt anything and might help the contrast a little. But for lens protection (no magic characteristics that protect from heavy impact but protection from things like scratches from underbrush when hiking) I use a skylight or similar filter.
I use hoods about half the time, and then usually without a filter.
I never use a hood with a polarizing filter.
I usually don't use a hood for events, as it is too cumbersome and doesn't help/hinder on-camera speedlights.
Some hoods are beyond cumbersome, and seldom used -- like the 16-35L (but I do occasionally use it!).
I buy after market hoods for any lenses that don't have them.
I don't notice much improvement on decent coated lenses like "L's" unless there is direct sun hitting the front element. But I prefer them for zooms -- they give peace of mind regarding flare.
In outdoor situations, I usually use my hand to block the sun -- a carry over from my old 4x5 days.
Hoods and filters -- both good in the right circumstances. No hood/filter -- also good in the right circumstances.
ken.vs.ryu wrote:
hoods are sexy and affect the image in a positive way. they make the camera look more purposeful. leica square hoods with caps are awesome.
I used to dislike hoods for the size, but since I got into RF lenses, I use them all the time. First they are much smaller than their DSLR counterparts, and kind of look cool too, especially the vented ones.
UV filter poll, I realized we need another poll for hoods. 
